Having seen the way Disney introduced elements of both political correctness,a and also subtle identity politics in the Star Wars universe**, I am worried that the executives at Disney will force Lucas and/or Koepp to shoehorn in politically correct elements into the series, for example:

-Toning down the violence considerably; "Disney-fying" the deaths of the baddies
-Toning down the villains and making them even more cartoon-esque than LC and KOTCS did.
-Playing it safe so as not to offend the kiddie audience; no blood; no brutality.
-No cursing by Indy or any other character
-Shoehorning in an obvious racial or gender token hero alongside Indy, who takes the spotlight from him
-Indy spewing off forced PC dialogue.
-If it takes place in the 1960s, references to feminism if Indy has a female sidekick
-Indy being shown as a racist, misogynistic dinosaur

Etc.

I am for equal rights, but Indy should not reflect the cultural standards of the 2010s just to appease others of my generation. He is a character who lived in a different time, and the films are throwbacks to that earlier age; I would not want to see Ford's Indy become politically correct in any way. For example, in today's world, his forced kiss of Elsa in the hotel room would be labelled sexual assault by the Tumblr crowd. He would never be allowed to threaten Willie's life to Lao Che to gain leverage if TOD was made today; that would be called assault, and so on. He would not be able to grab Elsa's throat as he did in LC - The PC police would have a fit.

I fear that under the management of the very PC Disney, Indy will be neutered to a great degree. Does anyone share these fears?

***= for example, Rey has been called a "Mary Sue", who somehow pilots the Falcon better than Han ever did; Another example being recently that the writers of Rogue One labelled the Empire a "white supremacist organization" and the rebels a "multicultural band led by brave women).

I understand some of your points but as far as the Rogue One creators talking about the differences in ideology between the Galactic Empire and the Rebel Alliance, this has always been a part of the Star Wars story. The Empire as portrayed in the originally trilogy was always all human, white and male. Where as the Rebel Alliance was more inclusive, featuring women, minorities and non-humans as well. The leaders of the Rebellion in the original trilogy were Mon Mothma and Princess Leia, so women were always featured as being powerful. This is certainly true to Lucas's original vision. It has changed in recent years with the Empire (and successor state the First Order) featuring a more diverse cast, which certainly makes the historical link to regimes like Nazi Germany less strong, which was Lucas's original inspiration.

Having seen the way Disney introduced elements of both political correctness,a and also subtle identity politics in the Star Wars universe**, I am worried that the executives at Disney will force Lucas and/or Koepp to shoehorn in politically correct elements into the series, for example:

-Toning down the violence considerably; "Disney-fying" the deaths of the baddies
-Toning down the villains and making them even more cartoon-esque than LC and KOTCS did.
-Playing it safe so as not to offend the kiddie audience; no blood; no brutality.
-No cursing by Indy or any other character
-Shoehorning in an obvious racial or gender token hero alongside Indy, who takes the spotlight from him
-Indy spewing off forced PC dialogue.
-If it takes place in the 1960s, references to feminism if Indy has a female sidekick
-Indy being shown as a racist, misogynistic dinosaur

Etc.

I am for equal rights, but Indy should not reflect the cultural standards of the 2010s just to appease others of my generation. He is a character who lived in a different time, and the films are throwbacks to that earlier age; I would not want to see Ford's Indy become politically correct in any way. For example, in today's world, his forced kiss of Elsa in the hotel room would be labelled sexual assault by the Tumblr crowd. He would never be allowed to threaten Willie's life to Lao Che to gain leverage if TOD was made today; that would be called assault, and so on. He would not be able to grab Elsa's throat as he did in LC - The PC police would have a fit.

I fear that under the management of the very PC Disney, Indy will be neutered to a great degree. Does anyone share these fears?

***= for example, Rey has been called a "Mary Sue", who somehow pilots the Falcon better than Han ever did; Another example being recently that the writers of Rogue One labelled the Empire a "white supremacist organization" and the rebels a "multicultural band led by brave women).

I definitely agree with you and surely hope there won't be any political correctness in Indy 5.

The toning down of violence in Crystal Skull was completely self-imposed. Spielberg and Lucas had nobody but themselves to answer to, and what they came up with was a movie where Indy doesn't fire his gun and the main villain evaporates into disinfectant. If we get more of the same with Indy 5, don't point the finger at Disney.

With regards to how blatant the political correctness in TFA was, your mileage may vary. Some people were just happy to see a diverse array of characters having adventures, rather than the usual white men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiders112390

I am for equal rights, but Indy should not reflect the cultural standards of the 2010s just to appease others of my generation. He is a character who lived in a different time, and the films are throwbacks to that earlier age; I would not want to see Ford's Indy become politically correct in any way.

I'm not convinced that ANY of the Indiana Jones films reflected the cultural standards of the times in which they were set; they instead reflected the cultural standards of their year of production. The sexism and racism that would have been rife in the 1930s weren't really on show in the trilogy at all. The unrealistic and/or offensive portrayal of characters in ToD was also indicative of the 80s, I'd suggest, rather than the 30s.

I'm no historian, but even the pre-war attitudes shown towards the Nazis in Raiders and Crusade were quite possibly with the benefit of hindsight, 40+ years after World War II.

So basically: no, I'm not the least bit worried. The IJ films have always been contemporary re-imaginings of the serials they emulated; I have no doubt that the 2019 film will reflect 2019 attitudes, even if it's set in the late 50s/early 60s.

With regards to how blatant the political correctness in TFA was, your mileage may vary. Some people were just happy to see a diverse array of characters having adventures, rather than the usual white men.

I'm not convinced that ANY of the Indiana Jones films reflected the cultural standards of the times in which they were set; they instead reflected the cultural standards of their year of production. The sexism and racism that would have been rife in the 1930s weren't really on show in the trilogy at all. The unrealistic and/or offensive portrayal of characters in ToD was also indicative of the 80s, I'd suggest, rather than the 30s.

I'm no historian, but even the pre-war attitudes shown towards the Nazis in Raiders and Crusade were quite possibly with the benefit of hindsight, 40+ years after World War II.

So basically: no, I'm not the least bit worried. The IJ films have always been contemporary re-imaginings of the serials they emulated; I have no doubt that the 2019 film will reflect 2019 attitudes, even if it's set in the late 50s/early 60s.

Perhaps Harrison shouldn't even return at all then and we should have Leslie Jones as Indy to reflect 2019 attitudes.

When John Musker and Ron Clements told Disney Animation chief John Lasseter that they were interested in creating a new story based on the Polynesian demi-god Maui, Lasseter had one response: “Go research.”

Clements and Musker have an even longer history at Disney than Lasseter does; as the writer-director team behind The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, they essentially invented the modern Disney animated musical. But Lasseter was clear: the project would not go any further until Musker and Clements actually went to Polynesia, marking the beginning of a process that makes Moana one of Disney’s most culturally authentic endeavors yet. For a studio that has been dogged by accusations of cultural insensitivity in the past and present, it was no small accomplishment.

Musker and Clements’s 2011 trip to Polynesia, the first of many, led to the birth of what they would later name the Oceanic Trust. Consisting of a group of anthropologists, cultural practitioners, historians, linguists, and choreographers from islands including Samoa, Tahiti, Mo’orea, and Fiji, this group was integral in shaping some of the finest details of Moana, from character design to song lyrics—and they certainly understand the skeptics who raised eyebrows when the marketing materials for Moana were first released.
[...]
Fine attention to detail and constant feedback from the Oceanic Trust helped shape the film on every level. Notes from the Trust on the kind of curtains in Moana’s home, the pits used to cook food, and inaccurate lyrics about coconut husks all resulted in minuscule tweaks that would mean nothing to audiences unfamiliar with the culture, but made all the difference to the Trust. A scene in which Moana throws a temper tantrum and hurls coconuts down on the sand in anger was cut because, as Fonoti puts it, she “raised a flag,” calling the waste of the sacred coconut “absolutely offensive.”

Obviously, Disney Feature Animation is an entire different branch of the company than Lucasfilm, so it's hard to say how much implication this information might have for Indy V, but I'd call it good news.

Based on what I saw in The Force Awakens, I'm really not concerned about any of this.

-Toning down the violence considerably; "Disney-fying" the deaths of the baddies
The violence in TFA actually felt a bit more brutal than what we'd seen in previous SW films. The blasters had more impact than they did in the past films. Also, they didn't shy away from showing blood.

-Toning down the villains and making them even more cartoon-esque than LC and KOTCS did.
Again, TFA didn't do that at all. So I'm not concerned.

-Playing it safe so as not to offend the kiddie audience; no blood; no brutality.
See above.

-No cursing by Indy or any other character
Indy films were never really known for much cursing, so this isn't an issue for me at all. (Besides, I don't think films are better just because they have cursing in them. If it suits the moment, fine, but I don't want to see Indy turned into somebody who can't get through a sentence without swearing.

-Shoehorning in an obvious racial or gender token hero alongside Indy, who takes the spotlight from him
I don't want the spotlight taken from Indy, regardless of what the gender or race is. KOTCS took the spotlight from Indy many times, often by white males.

-Indy spewing off forced PC dialogue.
Seems unlikely. Then again, before I saw KOTCS, I would have thought it was unlikely that Indy would be saying "This is intolerable!", so who knows.

-If it takes place in the 1960s, references to feminism if Indy has a female sidekick
I wouldn't mind that if it's done in a way that adds to the tension and conflict between Indy and his sidekick, and isn't done to the point of being obnoxious.

-Indy being shown as a racist, misogynistic dinosaur
I really doubt Disney would choose to portray the hero of the film that way.

Quote:

I am for equal rights, but Indy should not reflect the cultural standards of the 2010s just to appease others of my generation. He is a character who lived in a different time, and the films are throwbacks to that earlier age;

Well, that's why the feminism references would actally make sense. The 1960s/70s were when that movement really began to take off, so putting those sorts of references in the film would be suitable for the time period of the film.

That's because Leader Snoke was the only true villain of the movie and was in TFA for like two minutes.

I understand you aren't considering "Kylo Ren" a true villain because of his family and what appears to be conflicted actions in the film, despite the fact he did some terrible things. Even if you overlook him, you wouldn't consider General Hux a true villain? He is involved in training soldiers from birth to blindly follow orders, he gave a speech reminiscent of Hitler's 1934 Nuremberg rally speech and most significantly suggested that an entire star system be obliterated resulting in billions of deaths. He is subordinate to Snoke but seems to be a villain in his own right.

That's because Leader Snoke was the only true villain of the movie and was in TFA for like two minutes.

You don't consider Kylo Ren a villain? (remeber, he's the guy who ordered his troops to wipe out an entire village filled with innocent, defenseless residents, and murdered his own father.) Interesting.

And Genreal Hux (the guy who obliterated multiple planets)... he wasn't a villain either? Hmm.

Well, if we're going to be that relaxed about the definition of "villain," I guess not many movies have villains in them.

Well, that's why the feminism references would actally make sense. The 1960s/70s were when that movement really began to take off, so putting those sorts of references in the film would be suitable for the time period of the film.

This.

Raiders, the fact that you think of feminism as a solely contemporary issue only highlights your own ignorance of 20th Century American history. Feminism and hippie counter-culture took off in the 1960s. It would make perfect sense to see that in a film set in that time.

Raiders, the fact that you think of feminism as a solely contemporary issue only highlights your own ignorance of 20th Century American history. Feminism and hippie counter-culture took off in the 1960s. It would make perfect sense to see that in a film set in that time.

Ignorance? I'm a history major.
You don't normally associate (in a pop culture sense) any period outside of the late 1960s with feminism and Hippie culture. I do not expect an Indy V to take place after 1965; I do not think they will go far into the 60s as Indy would have to be in his late 60s or 70s. I also just think for period purposes, they're not going to go late in the decade; seeing an Indy movie set in 1969 or 1970 would be very jarring and I imagine Disney is aware of that. Hippies really didn't start appearing until around 1965 in the form they're most remembered for today, and feminism did not kick into high gear in terms of the way it is remembered in pop culture (burning bras, etc) until the late 1960s. If the film takes place in say, 1963 or 1964, I wouldn't expect to see a guy with hair down to his shoulders wearing love beads hanging out with Betty Friedan in the background.

I have been an Indiana Jones fan since the age of 8 when I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark and it immediately became my all-time favorite film to this day. It inspired me to explore mythology, comparative mythology, which has lead to ancient civilizations, ancient alien theory and quantum physics. In my continual search for all kinds of knowledge that reveal the truths of life's mysteries, I have discovered via personal astrological , that I naturally embody the perpetual curiosity and respect for knowledge as our beloved, globe-trotting archaeologist. No wonder I resonated so greatly w/ Raiders!

As an actor labeled "African-American", I have been blessed to have a 26-year career as a professional actor. I believe in equality but not politically correct color blindness, which seeks to erase significant cultural differences. I have played roles specific to those of African or non-Caucasian descent in the hope I was cast because I was who they considered the best. I've also booked roles that could have been played by a non-African American actor, making it much clearer that the production team was only in search of who they felt were the best actors.

Would I love to be in Indiana Jones 5? You bet! I did research on African-American professors teaching in the U.S. in the mid-1950's and there actually were a few. So is it historically conceivable David Koepp could create a new Marshall College colleague for Dr. Jones that was African-American? You bet. Would the professor's race play into the story-line?

First, If written well, the scene would be similar to the one where the German Officer calls Captain Katanga a savage. It is an effectively brief and nasty moment of genuine racism and I certainly remember felt uneasy about it when I saw Raiders at the age of eight.

Two other Raiders moments also stand out as racially insensitive, moments I was not aware of until adulthood: When Indy shoots the Arab Swordsman for no good reason and when Indy and the truck-driving German soldier share a laugh about the Arab worker knocked off the windshield.

For that matter, I have read many legitimate criticisms of Temple of Doom as being racist in it's stereotyping of Indian people, rendering them caricatures, (except, in my opinion, for Rosahan Seth who played a seemingly three dimensional Chatter Lal). This awareness of perhaps unintentional insensitivity on the part of the Indy Jones production team has not ruined my enjoyment of the film.

So far, we have had several cultures and races represented in all Indy films, whether as main or minor characters. My understanding of the character of Dr. Jones is that he himself with his appreciation for different languages and cultures, would not harbor racist concepts and thus, his world should reflect that ideal. To think any appearance of a non-Caucasian in an Indy film as automatically being a sign of "tokenism" insults the actors performing those roles, unless, of course, the criticism is warranted, such as in the case of cartoonish Nazis, native Indiana and even the historical Thugee Cult.

Instead, just pray the film is written well with characters who are three dimensional.

First, If written well, the scene would be similar to the one where the German Officer calls Captain Katanga a savage. It is an effectively brief and nasty moment of genuine racism and I certainly remember felt uneasy about it when I saw Raiders at the age of eight.

I always thought the "savage" remark by Dietrich was more in response to Katanga calling Marion a "prize" that had "a certain value where we're headed," heavily implying that the crew was going to either rape her or sell her into sex-slavery. I guess it could be read both ways though.

I always thought the "savage" remark by Dietrich was more in response to Katanga calling Marion a "prize" that had "a certain value where we're headed," heavily implying that the crew was going to either rape her or sell her into sex-slavery. I guess it could be read both ways though.

I think we're meant to think that Dietrich would have called Katanga something other than "savage" in response to his sex slavery gambit, had Katanga not been black.

***

By the way, bebop, I'm unable to respond at length right now, but I'm grateful to you for sharing these thoughts, and look forward to giving them a full look.

Would I love to be in Indiana Jones 5? You bet! I did research on African-American professors teaching in the U.S. in the mid-1950's and there actually were a few. So is it historically conceivable David Koepp could create a new Marshall College colleague for Dr. Jones that was African-American? You bet. Would the professor's race play into the story-line?

This sounds great!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bebop

Two other Raiders moments also stand out as racially insensitive, moments I was not aware of until adulthood: When Indy shoots the Arab Swordsman for no good reason and when Indy and the truck-driving German soldier share a laugh about the Arab worker knocked off the windshield.

I've never thought about that second scene that way, but that's certainly a valid reaction to it. I think I always assumed Indy was mocking the German at that point, rather than genuinely having a good time with him...

Quote:

Originally Posted by bebop

For that matter, I have read many legitimate criticisms of Temple of Doom as being racist in it's stereotyping of Indian people, rendering them caricatures, (except, in my opinion, for Rosahan Seth who played a seemingly three dimensional Chatter Lal). This awareness of perhaps unintentional insensitivity on the part of the Indy Jones production team has not ruined my enjoyment of the film.

Yeah, that film certainly crosses a line that the other three only come close to.

I think we're meant to think that Dietrich would have called Katanga something other than "savage" in response to his sex slavery gambit, had Katanga not been black.

***

By the way, bebop, I'm unable to respond at length right now, but I'm grateful to you for sharing these thoughts, and look forward to giving them a full look.

While I agree that Dietrich's comment may not be purely based on the sexual nature of the situation, I don't think his use of the word "savage" is indicative of a lack of PC in the movie. Dietrich is clearly shown to be someone who is buying into the Nazi ideology of Aryan superiority. His response to Belloq later in the film about being "uncomfortable with this Jewish ritual" clearly displays this. Also Lucas and Speilberg portraying a captain of African decent with a black crew and a ship with a very African name like Bantu Wind could be a sign of empowerment. Especially during the 30's, an era of colonialism abroad and segregation back in the US.

Katanga is actually a very good character. He's not a crude stereotype as are a lot of minority characters in films like these. Look at the prison warden in 1999's The Mummy - he's portrayed as a stereotypical "dirty" Arab figure, lecherous, crude, smelly and unintelligent. Look at the grubby, dirty, greedy Hungarian Beni in that film, who is the secondary antagonist. The Indy trilogy may not be the most "PC" series ever, but it was filmed not long after the Iran hostage crisis and gas shortage and yet his best friend is an Egyptian (in your average Joe's eyes, an Arab). I'd say that's pretty big for the time period. Sallah isn't the brightest light, but he's also not a stereotype. Marion is a pretty strong female character, especially when you compare her to Willie Scott, who is more akin to the 1930s Damsel in Distress, or even Elsa, who is a pretty stock 1940s femme fatale.

While I agree that Dietrich's comment may not be purely based on the sexual nature of the situation, I don't think his use of the word "savage" is indicative of a lack of PC in the movie. Dietrich is clearly shown to be someone who is buying into the Nazi ideology of Aryan superiority. His response to Belloq later in the film about being "uncomfortable with this Jewish ritual" clearly displays this. Also Lucas and Speilberg portraying a captain of African decent with a black crew and a ship with a very African name like Bantu Wind could be a sign of empowerment. Especially during the 30's, an era of colonialism abroad and segregation back in the US.

Oh, you misunderstand me: I don't think it has anything to do with any so-called "political correctness."

What you suggest is precisely what I mean: that Dietrich would have called Katanga something other than "savage" if he weren't black, and that it's a demonstration of feelings of racial superiority.